ID: nht75-6.8

DATE: 10/31/75

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Dunlop Tire and Rubber Corporation

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Thank you for your letter of July 8, 1975, to Ed Wallace of our Tire Division, enclosing a letter from Mr. W. Preuss of Dunlop Germany, concerning the allocation, between vehicle manufacturers and tire manufacturers, of responsibility for the safety of original equipment tires.

Section 159 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, as amended by the Motor Vehicle and Schoolbus Safety Amendments of 1974, specifies that, except as otherwise provided in regulations of this agency, a defect in or noncompliance of an original equipment tire shall be the responsibility of the vehicle manufacturer. The NHTSA has recently granted the petitions of the Motor Vehicle Manufacturers Association, General Motors, and the European Tyre and Rim Technical Organisation for a reallocation of this responsibility. We expect to issue a notice of proposed rulemaking on this subject in the near future.

YOURS TRULY,

July 8, 1975

E. N. Wallace Chief, Tire Division National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Further in regard to our letter of July 1st, which had enclosures from Bob Clifton, I am attaching a copy of a letter from Mr. Preuss of Dunlop Germany to Mr. Clifton, concerning Part 577, Notice 1, May 6, 1975.

Will you please discuss in your circle and let me have your comments.

DUNLOP TIRE & RUBBER CORPORATION

J. W. Boyd, Manager

Government & Industry Technical Relations

ID: 2835yy

Thomas R. Mounteer, Esq.
Keller & Heckman
1150 17th Street, N.W.
Suite 1000
Washington, D. C. 20037

Dear Mr. Mounteer:

This responds to your letter on behalf of your client, Heritage Motors, that asked whether Heritage, given the nature of its manufacturing process, must assign its own Vehicle Identification Numbers (VINs). I apologize for the delay in this response. As discussed below, since Heritage considers the vehicles it manufactures to be: (l) "new" vehicles and (2) manufactured in one stage, it must assign its own VINs to the cars. I note that this letter addresses the vehicles Heritage assembles and not the "kits" which Heritage also sells.

According to your letter, Heritage Motors makes replica Mercedes 500K passenger cars, using 1970-1981 Chevrolet Camaros as donor cars. An information brochure accompanying your letter describes the parts that are removed from the Camaros and then reused in the Mercedes replica. Since Heritage uses a new body, engine, transmission, and many other new or remanufactured parts, you have considered the completed vehicle to be a "new" motor vehicle. Moreover, Heritage manufactures the vehicles in one stage.

Under section S4.l of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. ll5, Vehicle Identification Number--Basic Requirements, each vehicle manufactured in one stage must have a VIN that is assigned by the manufacturer. Heritage must therefore assign its own VIN numbers to the cars it manufactures.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any additional questions, please feel free to contact Ms. Dorothy Nakama of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel ref:115 d:2/l/9l

ID: nht91-1.32

DATE: February 1, 1991

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Thomas R. Mounteer -- Keller & Heckman

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 7-27-90 from Thomas R. Mounteer to Paul Jackson Rice (OCC 5031)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter on behalf of your client, Heritage Motors, that asked whether Heritage, given the nature of its manufacturing process, must assign its own Vehicle Identification Numbers (VINs). I apologize for the delay in this response. As discussed below, since Heritage considers the vehicles it manufactures to be: (1) "new" vehicles and (2) manufactured in one stage, it must assign its own VINs to the cars. I note that this letter addresses the vehicles Heritage assembles and not the "kits" which Heritage also sells.

According to your letter, Heritage Motors makes replica Mercedes 500K passenger cars, using 1970-1981 Chevrolet Camaros as donor cars. An information brochure accompanying your letter describes the parts that are removed from the Camaros and then reused in the Mercedes replica. Since Heritage uses a new body, engine, transmission, and many other new or remanufactured parts, you have considered the completed vehicle to be a "new" motor vehicle. Moreover, Heritage manufactures the vehicles in one stage.

Under section S4.1 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 115, Vehicle Identification Number--Basic Requirements, each vehicle manufactured in one stage must have a VIN that is assigned by the manufacturer. Heritage must therefore assign its own VIN numbers to the cars it manufactures.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any additional questions, please feel free to contact Ms. Dorothy Nakama of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

ID: nht81-1.38

DATE: 03/13/81

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Halliburton Services

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

NOA-30

Mr. Ralph Houser Environmental Engineer Halliburton Services Drawer 1431 Duncan, OK 73536

Dear Mr. Houser:

This is in response to your letter posing a number of questions concerning the application of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 115 (49 CFR 571.115) to trucks rebuilt by your company using a variety of new and used components.

Section 571.7(e) of Part 49, CFR, provides that when a new cab is used in the assembly of a truck, the truck will be considered newly manufactured unless the engine, transmissions and drive axle(s) are not new, and at least two of these components were taken from the same vehicle. If the truck is considered newly manufactured, a new vehicle identification number (VIN) must be assigned to the vehicle. In all other circumstances, the vehicle assumes the VIN of the vehicle most significantly represented in the reconstructed vehicle.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

(405) 251-3569 October 29, 1980

Mr. Frederic Schwartz, Chief Council National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Department of Transportation NOA 30 Room 5211 Washington, DC 20590

Dear Sir: RE: 49 CFR Parts 571.7(a), 571.7(e), 571.115

Halliburton Services requests a written interpretation from your office regarding Vehicle Indentification Number (VIN) requirements under the circumstances as described below.

A. A truck is purchased by a company. The company uses the truck for a period of 10 years. At that time the truck is rebuilt by the company using a new cab only. Does this rebuilding operation require the issuance of a new VIN for the truck?

B. A truck is purchased by a company. The company uses the truck for a period of 10 years. At that time the truck is rebuilt by the company using a new cab and a new engine. Does this rebuilding operation require the issuance of a new VIN for the truck?

C. A truck is purchased by a company. The company uses the truck for a period of 10 years. At that time the truck is rebuilt by the company using a new cab, new engine and new transmission. Does this rebuilding operation require the issuance of a new VIN for the truck?

Your assistance in this matter will be greatly appreciated.

Very truly yours,

Ralph Houser Environmental Engineer

RH:jw Certified Mail cc: Nelson Erickson Bill Gilchrist Richard Mize Scott Morris Dale Bragg

ID: nht93-7.4

DATE: October 1, 1993 (EST)

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Richard Horian -- President, Woodleaf Corporation

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter (fax) dated 8/12/93 from Richard Horian to Michael Perel (OCC 9016)

TEXT:

This is in response to your FAX of August 12, 1993, to Michael Perel of this agency regarding your "sudden brake indicator hazard light."

You were informed on December 7, 1992, by Paul Jackson Rice, then the Chief Counsel, that this auxiliary item of lighting equipment would be permissible as original equipment since it did not appear that it would impair the effectiveness of any of the lighting equipment required by Standard No. 108. You now ask "(w)hat is the fastest flash rate or range of flash rates expressed in 'flashes per minute' that are allowed by Federal law."

Standard No. 108 does not specify any range of flash rates for items of supplementary lighting equipment, thus, the choice is that of the manufacturer. The standard does specify a flash rate for turn sign and hazard warning signal lamps which are required by the standard. The flash rate for these lamps is 60 to 120 flashes per minute. In addition, S5.6 of the standard specifies a motorcycle headlamp modulation rate of 240 cycles per minute, plus or minus 40 cycles per minute.

The cycling and modulation rates of lighting systems are very important to motor vehicle safety because of a phenomenon known as "photic driving." This issue concerns potential adverse reactions in some people similar to epileptic seizures. The condition is brought on by certain regularly flashing lights, even in some persons not otherwise susceptible to epilepsy. From available studies, it appears that people are most likely to be affected if the flash rate is about ten flashes per second (600 flashes per minute) and/or when the background is very dark.

ID: 9016a

Mr. Richard Horian
President
Woodleaf Corporation

FAX 310-326-6965

Dear Mr. Horian:

This is in response to your FAX of August 12, 1993, to Michael Perel of this agency regarding your "sudden brake indicator hazard light."

You were informed on December 7, 1992, by Paul Jackson Rice, then the Chief Counsel, that this auxiliary item of lighting equipment would be permissible as original equipment since it did not appear that it would impair the effectiveness of any of the lighting equipment required by Standard No. 108. You now ask "[w]hat is the fastest flash rate or range of flash rates expressed in 'flashes per minute' that are allowed by Federal law."

Standard No. 108 does not specify any range of flash rates for items of supplementary lighting equipment, thus, the choice is that of the manufacturer. The standard does specify a flash rate for turn sign and hazard warning signal lamps which are required by the standard. The flash rate for these lamps is 60 to 120 flashes per minute. In addition, S5.6 of the standard specifies a motorcycle headlamp modulation rate of 240 cycles per minute, plus or minus 40 cycles per minute.

The cycling and modulation rates of lighting systems are very important to motor vehicle safety because of a phenomenon known as "photic driving." This issue concerns potential adverse reactions in some people similar to epileptic seizures. The condition is brought on by certain regularly flashing lights, even in some persons not otherwise susceptible to epilepsy. From available studies, it appears that people are most likely to be affected if the flash rate is about ten flashes per second (600 flashes per minute) and/or when the background is very dark.

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel

ref:108 d:9/28/93

ID: nht93-2.3

DATE: March 2, 1993

FROM: Berkley C. Sweet -- Executive Vice President, School Bus Manufacturers Institute (SBMI)

TO: Mary Versailles -- Office of Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 6-3-93 from John Womack to Berkley C. Sweet (A41; Part 571.3; VSA 102(14)); Also attached to letter dated 3-20-90 from Stephen P. Wood to Cadwallader Jones (A35; VSA 102(14); Part 571.3).

TEXT: On July 28, 1992, Mr. Paul Rice responded to our letter of May 29, 1992 concerning MVSS 222 regarding under-aged children transported in school buses.

In this correspondence, he referred to primary, pre-primary, and secondary school students. We would like to have your definition for each class of the students mentioned in Mr. Rice's letter.

Your cooperation in assisting us in this matter will be greatly appreciated.

ID: nht87-1.5

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 01/08/87

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: John B. Walsh -- Corporate Attorney, Manager, Legal Affairs Dept., U.S. Suzuki Motor Corp.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

ATTACHMT: 11/21/84 letter from Frank Berndt to U.S. Suzuki Motor Corp. (Std. 108)

TEXT:

John B. Walsh, Esq. Corporate Attorney Manager, Legal Affairs Dept. U.S. Suzuki Motor Corp. P.O. Box 1100 Brea, CA 92621

This is in reply to your letter of August 15, 1986, to Mr. Vinson of this office, asking for an interpretation of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108.

You cite Table IV's requirement that the minimum edge to edge distance from a motorcycle's front turn signal to the headlamp be a minimum of inches. Referring to a similar requirement for rear lamp spacing and previous agency interpretations stating that this applies only when there are single rear lamps mounted on the vertical centerline, but not when dual stop and tail lamps are mounted on either side of the centerline, you have asked for an interpretation that an exception from the minimum turn signa l spacing requirement is also permissible when a motorcycle has two headlamps rather than one.

We are unable to provide the requested interpretation because of SAE J588e, September 1970. SAE J588e is incorporated by Standard No. 108 and applies to turn signal lamps in use on passenger cars, motorcycles, and all other motor vehicles. Paragraph 4.2 of SAE J588e establishes the requirement that "the optical axis (filament center) of the front turn signal shall be at least 4 in. from the inside diameter of the retaining ring of the headlamp unit providing the lower beam." This requirement applies reg ardless of the number or location of motor vehicle headlamps. SAE J588e did not prevent the issuance of the earlier interpretations regarding rear lamp spacing since that SAE standard does not establish requirements for minimum separation between turn si gnals and rear lamps.

I hope that this answers your question.

Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones Chief Council

15 August 1986

Mr. Taylor Vinson Room 5219 Office of Chief Counsel. NOA-30 National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 700 Seventh Street. SW Washington, DC 20590

Dear Mr. Vinson:

Subject: Request for Interpretation - FMVSS 108

On November 21, 1984, the Chief Counsel confirmed a 1972 agency interpretation of FMVSS 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment (copy of 1972 interpretation, 1984 request, and your office's 1984 response enclosed). The 1972 interpretatio n was for a motorcycle rear lighting configuration. This letter is to request confirmation that the July 1972 interpretation of FMVSS 108 could apply to a motorcycle front lighting configuration as well as the addressed rear lighting configuration.

Table IV of FMVSS 108 required that motorcycle front turn signals be separated by 16 inches or more (centerline to centerline). and that minimum edge to edge distance from the turn signal to the headlamp be 4 inches or more.

We are exploring the possibility of using a front lighting configuration essentially comparable to current practice in passenger car front lighting configurations. This proposed front lighting configuration would consist of a single lamp unit located nea r the outer edge of each side of the front of the motorcycle. The inboard part of the lamp unit would be the headlamp and the outboard part of the lamp unit would be an amber turn signal lamp. Turn signal lamp separation would be equal to or greater than the 16 inch minimum required (see sketch attached).

We would like you to confirm, as in the 1972 and 1984 interpretations, that the minimum edge to edge separation distance of 4 inches between turn signals and headlamp applies when single headlamps are installed on the vertical centerline, but not when du el headlamps are installed on either side of the centerline.

Thank you for your consideration of this request.

Sincerely,

U.S. SUZUKI MOTOR CORP.

(See 11/21/84 correspondence between Frank Berndt and Suzuki)

ID: nht79-1.3

DATE: 01/26/79

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; J. J. Levin, Jr.; NHTSA

TO: Motor Coach Industries, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. T. Szkolnicki Mechanical Engineering Motor Coach Industries, Inc. Pembina, North Dakota 58271

Dear Mr. Szkolnicki:

This responds to your January 2, 1979, request for confirmation that a July 23, 1976, interpretation of S5.3.3 and S5.3.4 of Standard No. 121, Air Brake Systems, has been incorporated into the body of the regulation. I regret that you did not receive a reply to your letter of November 27, 1978, which was addressed to someone who is no longer in this office.

The interpretation in question has not been incorporated into the body of the regulation. During a court review of the standard which only recently concluded, the agency was making a few changes to the standard as possible. Consideration is now being given to revision of the standard in minor respects, but no date has been established for action. Until any such action is taken, you may continue to rely on the July 23, 1976, interpretation as the agency's official view of the meaning of S5.3.3 and S5.3.4.

Sincerely,

Original signed By

Joseph J. Levin, Jr. Chief Counsel

January 2, 1979

U.S. Department of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street WASHINGTON, D.C. 20590

Attn: Mr. Frank A. Berndt Acting Chief Counsel

Dear Mr. Berndt:

We refer you to our letter of November 27th, copy enclosed, in which we referred your letter of July 23rd, 1976 to White Motor.

We would appreciate a reply, confirming that an amendment to the FMVS 121 was issued.

MOTOR COACH INDUSTRIES

T. Szkolnicki, Supervisor Mechanical Engineering

TS/cf Enclosure

November 27th, 1978

U.S. Department of Transportation, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 400 Seventh Street, Washington, D.C. 20590

Attention: Frank A. Berndt - Acting Chief Counsel

Dear Mr. Berndt:

We refer you to your letter of July 23rd, 1976, to the White Motor Corporation, copy enclosed. The letter refers to the FMVSS #121. Specifically, it refers to the apply and release times for brake chambers that have a lower max. brake chamber pressure.

The last paragraph notes that "the agency will issue an interpretive amendment to S5.3.3 and S5.3.4 to reflect this interpretation".

Can you advise if this amendment was issued, and if so, please forward a copy of this. If the amendment was not issued, can you comment on when this will be done? Thank you.

Yours very truly,

MOTOR COACH INDUSTRIES, INC.,

T. Szkolnicki, Supervisor, Mechanical Engineering.

TS/jp

ID: nht95-5.51

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: August 4, 1995

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: George E. Walton -- International Manufacturer's Consultants, Inc.

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 07/13/95 LETTER FROM GEORGE WALTON TO JOHN WOMACK (OCC 11044)

TEXT: Dear Mr. Walton:

This responds to your July 13, 1995 letter requesting an interpretation regarding the requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 205, "Glazing Materials." You stated in your letter that your client wants to know if Standard No. 205 permits the use of laminated AS-1 glass in motorcycle windshields.

The answer to your question is yes. ANSI Z26.1-1977, which has been incorporated by reference into Standard No. 205, explicitly refers to item 1 glazing (defined as including laminated glass) as "Safety Glazing Material for Use Anywhere in Motor Vehicle." Motorcycles are motor vehicles. Therefore, item 1 glazing is permitted in that application.

I hope this information is helpful. Please feel free to contact Paul Atelsek of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992 if you have any further questions or need additional information.